| Literature DB >> 32155811 |
Pan Huang1, Yanping Li1, Xiaoyi Lv1, Wen Chen1, Shuxian Liu1.
Abstract
Action recognition algorithms are widely used in the fields of medical health and pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR). The classification and recognition of non-normal walking actions and normal walking actions are very important for improving the accuracy of medical health indicators and PDR steps. Existing motion recognition algorithms focus on the recognition of normal walking actions, and the recognition of non-normal walking actions common to daily life is incomplete or inaccurate, resulting in a low overall recognition accuracy. This paper proposes a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) action recognition method based on Relief-F feature selection and relief-bagging-support vector machine (SVM). Feature selection using the Relief-F algorithm reduces the dimensions by 16 and reduces the optimization time by an average of 9.55 s. Experiments show that the improved algorithm for identifying non-normal walking actions has an accuracy of 96.63%; compared with Decision Tree (DT), it increased by 11.63%; compared with k-nearest neighbor (KNN), it increased by 26.62%; and compared with random forest (RF), it increased by 11.63%. The average Area Under Curve (AUC) of the improved algorithm improved by 0.1143 compared to KNN, by 0.0235 compared to DT, and by 0.04 compared to RF.Entities:
Keywords: MEMS; Relief-F; feature selection; non-normal walking actions; relief-bagging-SVM
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32155811 PMCID: PMC7085772 DOI: 10.3390/s20051447
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Framework of this article. Receiver Operating characteristic (ROC) Curve.
Figure 2Hardware design diagram.
Some important parameter settings of the hardware platform.
| Hardware | Parameter | Value | Parameter | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MPU6050 | Sampling frequency | 125 Hz | acceleration sensitivity/LSB/g | 16,384 |
| Sampling range | −4 g~4 g | - | - | |
| STC12 MCU | 0 × 3B, 0 × 3C | 0 × 3D, 0 × 3E | ||
| 0 × 3F, 0 × 40 | - | - | ||
| BLE | Communication cycle | 10 ms | Baud rate/bps | 11,520 |
| Way of communication | Asynchronous serial | - | - |
Figure 3Acceleration signal after acceleration synthesis and filtering.
Feature name and corresponding dimension table. FFT: Fast Fourier transform.
| Category | Feature Name | Dimension | Feature Name | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| mean | 1 | absolute slope | 9 | |
| standard deviation | 1 | maximum | 1 | |
| Time Domain | skewness | 1 | root mean square | 1 |
| correlation coefficient | 1 | maximal value | 1 | |
| variance | 1 | minimum | 1 | |
| average slope | 1 | kurtosis | 1 | |
| FFT | spectrum energy | 1 | average power | 1 |
| median frequency | 1 | - | - |
Figure 4Feature classification weight diagram before threshold setting: (a) Upper submap: Feature weight value map; (b) Lower submap: Weight value frequency chart.
Figure 5Feature classification weight diagram after threshold setting. (a) Upper submap: Feature weight value map; (b) Lower submap: Weight value frequency chart.
Feature number and name after Relief-F selection.
| Number | Feature Name | Number | Feature Name | Number | Feature Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | mean | 8 | average slope | 23 | median frequency |
| 4 | root mean square | 19 | maximum | - | - |
| 7 | maximal value | 21 | skewness | - | - |
Figure 610-fold cross-validation of polynomial kernel optimization.
Classification effect of different feature selection methods (Polynomial). LASSO: least absolute shrinkage and selection operator.
| Category | LASSO-SVM | Relief-F-SVM |
|---|---|---|
| Walking (%) | 80.00 | 100.0 |
| Running (%) | 93.33 | 100.0 |
| Standing (%) | 13.33 | 100.0 |
| Writing (%) | 86.66 | 93.33 |
| Man-made (%) | 13.33 | 40.00 |
| Sleep (%) | 93.33 | 100.0 |
| Downstairs (%) | 40.00 | 100.0 |
| Upstairs (%) | 66.66 | 100.0 |
| Average accuracy (%) | 60.83 | 91.66 |
Figure 710-fold cross-validation of polynomial kernel optimization.
Relief-F-SVM kernel function classification accuracy.
| Category | Linear | Polynomial | Gauss | Sigmoid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walking (%) | 100.0 | 100.0 | 93.33 | 0 |
| Running (%) | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0 |
| Standing (%) | 93.33 | 100.0 | 93.33 | 0 |
| Writing (%) | 93.33 | 93.33 | 93.33 | 100.0 |
| Man-made (%) | 33.33 | 40.00 | 26.66 | 0 |
| Sleep (%) | 86.67 | 100.0 | 86.66 | 0 |
| Downstairs (%) | 93.33 | 100.0 | 93.33 | 0 |
| Upstairs (%) | 53.33 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 12.50 |
| Average accuracy (%) | 81.66 | 91.66 | 85.83 | 12.50 |
Action recognition and classification accuracy.
| Category | KNN | RF | DT | SVM | Relief-SVM | Relief-Bagging-SVM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walking (%) | 100.0 | 93.75 | 100.0 | 80.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Running (%) | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 93.33 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Standing (%) | 73.33 | 91.67 | 100.0 | 13.33 | 100.0 | 94.87 |
| Writing (%) | 86.66 | 38.46 | 100.0 | 86.67 | 93.33 | 94.12 |
| Man-made (%) | 40.00 | 100.0 | 40.00 | 13.33 | 40.00 | 100.0 |
| Sleep (%) | 80.00 | 85.71 | 100.0 | 93.33 | 100.0 | 97.56 |
| Downstairs (%) | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 40.00 | 100.0 | 86.84 |
| Upstairs (%) | 100.0 | 94.74 | 100.0 | 66.67 | 100.0 | 81.58 |
| Normal Actions (%) | 100.0 | 97.12 | 100.0 | 70.00 | 100.0 | 92.10 |
| Non-normal Actions (%) | 69.99 | 78.96 | 85.00 | 51.66 | 83.33 | 96.63 |
| Average accuracy (%) | 85.00 | 88.04 | 92.50 | 60.83 | 91.66 | 94.37 |
Time performance table.
| Time/Dimension | KNN | RF | DT | SVM | Relief-SVM | Relief-Bagging-SVM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feature dimension | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 7 | 7 |
| Search time(s) | 1.36 | 0.58 | 0.81 | 18.68 | 9.13 | 9.13 |
Figure 8Relief-bagging-SVM algorithm flow.
Basic table of laboratory personnel.
| People | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Man | Woman | Woman | Man | Woman | Man | Woman | Man |
| Weight/kg | 63 | 51 | 45 | 85 | 56 | 80 | 55 | 70 |
| Height/cm | 170 | 165 | 157 | 183 | 161 | 191 | 155 | 178 |
| Age | 26 | 21 | 19 | 45 | 42 | 39 | 23 | 22 |
Some important parameters of k-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Decision Tree (DT), Random Forest (RF) and SVM.
| Classifier | Parameter | Value | Parameter | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DT | Maximum number of splits | 100 | Surrogate decision splits | off |
| Split criterion | Cini’s diversity index | Maximum surrogates per node | 10 | |
| SVM | Kernel function | Polynomial | Kernel scale mode | Manual |
| Multiclass method | One-vs-One | Standardize data | on | |
| RF | Pruning strategy | Post-pruning | Tree numbers | 5 |
| Split criterion | Cini’s diversity index | Max features | 23 | |
| KNN | Number of neighbors | 1 | Distance weight | Equal |
| Distance metric | Euclidean | Standardize data | on |
Figure 9SVM ROC curve.
Figure 10Relief-SVM ROC curve.
Figure 11Relief-bagging-SVM ROC curve.
AUC table.
| Category | RF | KNN | DT | SVM | Relief-SVM | Relief-Bagging-SVM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walking | - | - | - | 0.9321 | 1 | 1 |
| Running | - | - | - | 0.9822 | 0.9975 | 1 |
| Standing | - | - | - | 0.1562 | 1 | 1 |
| Writing | - | - | - | 0.9283 | 0.9994 | 0.9953 |
| Man-made | - | - | - | 0.3321 | 0.3162 | 1 |
| Sleep | - | - | - | 0.9949 | 0.9994 | 0.9981 |
| Downstairs | - | - | - | 0.8317 | 1 | 0.8567 |
| Upstairs | - | - | - | 0.7441 | 1 | 0.7231 |
| Average AUC | 0.9066 | 0.8323 | 0.9231 | 0.7377 | 0.9141 | 0.9466 |
Figure 12ROC curves of SVM, KNN, DT and Relief-Bagging-SVM.
Leave-One-Person-Out cross validation (LOPO-CV) experiment accuracy table.
| Category | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walking (%) | 100.0 | 98.32 | 97.63 | 100.0 | 98.66 | 100.0 | 97.22 | 100.0 |
| Running (%) | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Standing (%) | 95.87 | 93.61 | 95.11 | 94.33 | 97.65 | 94.18 | 97.58 | 96.33 |
| Writing (%) | 93.12 | 93.21 | 94.64 | 93.21 | 92.47 | 95.66 | 97.55 | 98.11 |
| Man-made (%) | 100.0 | 96.21 | 93.22 | 94.31 | 92.10 | 95.33 | 93.11 | 94.56 |
| Sleep (%) | 95.56 | 96.55 | 96.12 | 94.33 | 96.58 | 93.22 | 95.12 | 94.23 |
| Downstairs (%) | 90.84 | 88.63 | 84.25 | 92.31 | 97.46 | 95.21 | 86.33 | 89.94 |
| Upstairs (%) | 80.58 | 84.16 | 82.15 | 86.21 | 87.68 | 80.14 | 83.22 | 88.21 |
| Average accuracy (%) | 94.49 | 93.83 | 92.89 | 94.33 | 95.32 | 94.21 | 93.76 | 95.17 |